Marketing is unique, as it could
be described as being a new or old discipline. While other sciences, such as economics and accounting are
deeply rooted in traditional and classical theory, Marketing is an anomaly, as
it has the ability to evolve and change based on current conditions. With this being said, I have chosen to
write about three areas that deal with marketing online that can either harm or
benefit a brand in an online environment, depending on how they approach the current
subject.

I chose to write about this
specific topic because I felt it needed more analysis, is highly relevant, and
also because of the impact it has on all of our daily lives as consumers. Thanks to advances in technology and
the Internet in particular, we live in an age where we no longer have to make
ill informed purchases, feel buyers’ remorse, or sit in silence if we’ve had an
unpleasant experience with a company.
Increased communication and information strongly empower the consumer,
but does consumer empowerment benefit or harm brands?

Today, in the web 2.0 era, there
is a continued shift in power between buyers and sellers, although the many
variables involved influence just how substantial the shift in power can be. If utilized correctly, this increased
interactivity could result in more fluid business transactions, faster response
times to costumer dilemmas, and increased reception and constructive criticism
from customers. But unfortunately,
in the short time that firms have began interacting in a web 2.0 environment,
they have been slow to evolve in many cases, and have had to face the resulting
consequences.

2. Purpose

The purpose of this paper will be
to discuss and analyze the three major issues the author feels affect customer
interactivity in an online environment.
Some important points that will be discussed are how increased
information can lead to loss of a brands message, how online communities
continue to have an impact on brands today, and the effects of world of mouth
communications in a web 2.0 setting.

3. Definitions used

Brand Community

A brand community can be defined
as a group of people that possesses a common interest in a specific brand and
create a parallel social universe rife with it’s own myths, values, rituals,
vocabulary, and hierarchy (Cova and Pace, 2006).

Anti-Brand Community

Non geographically bound
communities that oppose specific brands or corporate brands, and in which
consumers take on roles as social activists (Hollenbeck and Zinkhan,
2006).

Web 2.0

The second generation in the
development of the world wide web, conceived as concepts, trends, and
technologies that focus on user collaboration, sharing of user-generated
content, and social networking (dictionary.com, 2013)

Word of Mouth Communications

A type of referral communication
from person to person that tends to rely heavily upon the credibility of the
source of that information or referral of the product, service, or company
being referred (Businessdictionary.com, 2013)

4. Theoretical Framework

In order to better understand the
various concepts that will be discussed in this paper, we will begin by
discussing the theoretical framework surrounding the issues. Following the theoretical framework for
each subject will be empirical evidence and a discussion of these these issues
in further detail.

Three
areas that can either benefit or harm a brand in a web environment

4.1. Loss of control of brand message resulting
from increased information

One issue that is often cited as
being modern phenomenon caused by the Internet is lack of control of messaging
due to increased information. Prior
to the advent of the Internet, marketers were forced to rely on methods such as
direct mail, advertising and telemarketing in order to invoke a response from
the intended consumer (Deighton and Kornfeld, 2009). These types of methods allowed marketers to shape the brand
message and meaning and then disseminate the information to their intended
customers. Although this type of
marketing was flawed and not without problems, it did allow marketers to more
easily control how their brands were portrayed. Today, these traditional methods are used less frequently in
an online setting, and marketers are finding it difficult to preserve the
original brand message.

One problem that marketers are
increasingly facing while marketing online is to control the meaning and
message of a particular brand because of increased consumer empowerment
(Deighton and Kornfeld, 2009). In a pre-Web 2.0 environment, if a consumer wanted to
find more information about a particular brand or product, they would need to
consult the corporate website. Also, in the physical world, a shopper that wants to buy a
product needs to manually go to the store and inspect the products (Allen and
Fjermestad, 2001). Unless the
shopper wanted to travel to each individual store, a time-consuming event, the
amount of information they could obtain was limited (Allen and Fjermestad,
2001). Today, because of the
Internet, third parties can deliver product information; consumers can shop
more comprehensively and at virtually no cost (Allen and Fjermestad, 2001). A survey done by comScore, an Internet
marketing research company, found that 24% of internet users access online
reviews such as those found at Amazon.com, prior to paying for services
delivered offline (Zhu and Zhang, 2009).

So, if there is a loss of control
of brand message resulting from increased information, how should marketers
react in order to benefit and avoid risk?
Brands today should attempt to focus on authenticity and how they can
provide relevant cultural materials to consumers (Holt, 2012). Yes, there is more information today,
but if marketers can produce content that is culturally relevant that consumers
truly place value on, they can overcome the overabundance of information. It can be argued that Apple Computer
fans choose to be because of the way they identify and construct the brand in their
own lives.

4.2. Online Communities

Online communities are of
particular importance to marketers as it is estimated that over 40 million
people worldwide participate in these types of communities (Sicilia and
Palazon, 2008). More importantly,
when used correctly, these brand communities can be used as marketing tools by
companies and also to increase customer loyalty (Sicilia and Palazon,
2008). Previously, less attention
was given towards brand communities as they lacked the tools required that have
made them indispensible in a web 2.0 environment.

One company that was a pioneer of understanding
the importance of creating online communities in order to target specific
markets was Proctor and Gamble (Barwise and Meehan, 2010). When Proctor and Gamble created
Beinggirl.com, it achieved its goal of peering into its target audience’s
world, but also because the platform was authentic and engaging. (Barwise and
Meehan, 2010). Another early
adaptor of the importance of online communities has been Virgin Atlantic
Airlines. Virgin Atlantic launched
a website called Vtravelled, where customers could exchange advice, stories and
inspiration (Barwise and Meehan, 2010).
The key to Virgin Atlantics’ success with Vtravelled cannot be
quantified with increased sales, which were minimal, but rather the sense of
authenticity that people feel when they navigate the site. Virgin Atlantic does not take actively
try to push sales with this site, but rather takes a tone of voice of a
traveler which reinforces the brands images and gives novel customer insights
(Barwise and Meehan, 2010).

Inversely, marketers and companies
must be aware of the dangers of anti-brand communities. Today, there is a growing resistance to
transnational brands and corporate globalization (Hollenbeck and Zinkhan,
2006). In these anti-brand
communities, the consumers take on the role of social activists, and voice
their opposition to corporate domination (Hollenbeck and Zinkhan, 2006). Also, these anti-brand communities
either oppose corporate brands such as Wal-Mart, but also specific brands such
as Marlboro (Hollenbeck and Zinkhan, 2006).

One of the best-known global
brands, MacDonald’s and the anti-brand communities formed against them. Currently, the two biggest anti-brand
communities against MacDonald’s are McSpotlight.com and McCruelty.com. Although these sites have different
agendas, they are equal in their attempts to disseminate information about the
MacDonald’s, and present a forum in which members can discuss issues
(Mcspotlight.org and Mccruelty.com).
These anti-brand communities allow social activists to group and donate
for effectively to support their causes (Mcspotlight.org and
Mccruelty.com). Today, marketers
must try to take an active role in these brand communities, in order to truly
understand consumer behavior, and to in understand perceived misconceptions or
opinions activists may have.
Also, today marketers must try to play a role in the formation of these
brand communities, so consumers can have a sense of belonging with others in
the community, and marketers can interact more easily with these various
communities.

4.3. Word of Mouth communications in an online
environment

In traditional marketing, the
effects of ‘word-of-mouth’ communications could not be amplified to reach such
a significant audience to truly affect a brand, but because of the vast reach
of the Internet, the level of importance has increased exponentially. In the 1980s, The Technical Assistance
Research Programs, Inc conducted research for the Coca-Cola Company to measure
the power that word-of-mouth communications had when a customer had a unpleasant
experience. The result was that
customers that felt their complaints had not been adequately resolved told an
average of 9-10 people (Customer World, 2013). Although, this can depend on the product, this soon became a
rule of thumb among marketers for many years of word of mouth communications,
although somewhat of a myth.

Today, because of Internet
marketing, marketers and companies must pay extra special attention to the
power of word of mouth communications.
One interesting piece of empirical evidence is the case of ‘United
breaks guitars.’ In 2008, a
musician named Dave Carroll was traveling with his $3,500 guitar, when it was
subsequently broken because of neglect on the part of the United baggage
handlers. After United Airlines
refused to reimburse him, Carroll wrote a protest song in order to vent his
frustration with the incident. The
accompanying video has been viewed over 12 million times, and proved to be a
public relations disaster for United (Assetbasedmarketing.com, 2013). Incidents like this make it necessary
that brands today have contingency plans in place, as well as controls in
various departments such as public relations and customer service management to
ensure that they can be dealt with appropriately (Deighton and Kornfeld, 2011).

Today, in order to benefit from
positive work of mouth communications, marketers must be quick to react when
faced with incidents, as well as by using novel approaches. One manner that has been used with
mixed success to reach customers and create positive word of mouth communications
is known as Buzz marketing. This
type of method is an umbrella term for the power of a marketer to pass on a
marketer’s message without the individual feeling as if they are receiving
advertising messages (Deighton and Kornfeld, 2009). Another brand that was successful at becoming a
cultural producer is Unilever with their Campaign for Real Beauty (Deighton,
2007). This change gave their
product a point-of-view rather than a traditional brand position (Deighton and
Kornfeld, 2009). Although, it was
criticized by some, this initiative has demonstrated that ever changing
landscape of internet marketing.

5.Conclusion

The author of this paper has used
the course materials, as well as external documents to examine the different
ways increased consumer interaction in an online environment can be beneficial
or harmful.

These three areas: loss of control
of messaging as a direct result of increased information, the power of online
communities, and the influence of word of mouth marketing have been outlined by
the author to show how they can be used in a rich, fruitful way by marketers,
or how they can be detrimental to a brand when misused or ignored.

For future research, it would be
interesting to examine how practitioners can adapt and incorporate current
research into existing protocol in order to avoid situations that can escalate
quickly. Also, future research
could benefit from changing current marketing models to reflect that these post
Web 2.0 advances cannot be viewed statically, but rather as a new science,
which can change, or incorporate new technology periodically.

6. References

Asset Based Marketing (2013) Myth: The average unhappy
customer will tell 10 people about the poor service he or she received.. [online]
Available at: http://www.assetbasedmarketing.com/marketing-news/myth-the-average-unhappy-customer-will-tell-10-people-about-the-poor-service-he-or-she-received.html
[Accessed: 17 Feb 2013].

Barwise, P. and Meehan, S. (2010) The One Thing You Must Get
Right When Building a Brand. Harvard Business Review .

Hanna, R. et al. (2011) We’re all connected: The power of the
social media ecosystem. Kelley School of Business.

Hollenbeck, C. and Zinkhan, G. (2006) Consumer Activism on the
Internet: The Role of Anti-brand Communities. Advances in Consumer Research,
Available at: http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/v33/v33_10337.pdf.

Zhu, F. and Zhang, X. (2009) Impact
of Online Consumer Reviews on Sales: The Moderating Role of Product and
Consumer Characteristics. Journal of Marketing,
Available at: http://uxscientist.com/public/docs/uxsci_49.pdf.